I watched it because: I was too young for it when it first came out, and I've always wondered if it can stand up to the hype
story: 3/5
visuals: 2.5/5
acting: 2/5--there is no great acting displayed here
intangibles: 3/5--Pittsburgh is the real star of the show, and is portrayed to advantage.
Academy Award winner: Best Music--Original Song
Academy Award nominee:
• Best Cinematography
• Best Film Editing
• Best Music--Original Song
overall: 2.625/5
Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995) - "John McClane and a Harlem store owner are targeted by German terrorist Simon Gruber in New York City, where he plans to rob the Federal Reserve Building."I watched it because: it was next in the series, and I definitely hadn't seen it before
story: 3/5--the series of coincidences and conveniences that make up the story are pretty astounding
visuals: 4.5/5--some of the best explosions and other special effects that I've ever seen
acting: 4.5/5--standouts: Bruce Willis owns the role of McClane, and Samuel L. Jackson manages to disappear himself into Zeus Carver
intangibles: 4/5
overall: 4/5
I watched it because: Peter Outerbridge, who plays Judy, is a longtime favorite.
story: 3/5--there are probably worlds like this, but the coincidental nature is hard to imagine
visuals: 3.5/5
acting: 4/5--standouts: Outerbridge is a revelation here, truly outstanding, and Marya Delver (Carla) and Kevin Mundy (Paul) add surprising sweetness and depth.
intangibles: 3/5
overall: 3.375/5
The Corsican File, a.k.a. L'enquête Corse (2004) - "Rémi François is a detective who is hired to find Ange Leoni, a Corsican who apparently has inherited a 2 million euros house."I watched it because: I've loved Jean Reno since I first saw The Professional (Léon), and some of his collaborations with Christian Clavier have been pretty good (e.g. Just Visiting).
story: 2/5--really excessively overly complicated (though maybe it wouldn't be, if French is your first language?)
visuals: 4/5--undeniably gorgeous
acting: 2/5--really, God only knows
intangibles: 2/5--I saw this on a DVD that had a French audio track with English subtitles. The subtitles are embedded, meaning that they run nonstop at the bottom of the screen. In white letters. Regardless of the color of the background. So when the background is completely white, the subtitles are invisible. That makes for some incredibly confusing minutes-long sections of film. It's essentially unwatchable for anyone who cannot understand verbal French.
overall: 2.5/5
I watched it because: it was the right length for the time that I had to work out that night, and I wanted something guaranteed to be mainstream-good after the last couple that I've seen
story: 4.5/5
visuals: 5/5--filmed on location in New York during one of the snowiest seasons that they've ever experienced, it's absolutely gorgeous (and brutal)
acting: 5/5--standouts: in a movie teeming with literal brilliance, it's hard to choose just one or two. Paul Newman (Sully) is wonderful here, growly and tired but neverendingly feisty and sexy as hell. In her final film role, Jessica Tandy (Miss Beryl) is strong, sweet, and beautiful. As Sully's friend and sometime-coworker Rub, Pruitt Taylor Vince could have been cartoonish or scary but was instead tender, gruff, and really affecting. The biggest surprise for me was Melanie Griffith (Toby Roebuck), of whom I've never been a fan, who was knockout gorgeous--more so in a sweatshirt and jeans than all dolled up--and absolutely spot on.
intangibles: 3.5/5--there are a few mailed-in performances and the editing is off here and there. I imagine the book must seem a lot tighter. Overall, though, this is a fantastic film.
Academy Award nominee:
• Best Actor--Paul Newman
• Best Writing--Screenplay Based on Previously Published Material
overall: 4.5/5
Lethal Weapon 3 (1992) - "Martin Riggs and Roger Murtaugh pursue a former LAPD officer who uses his knowledge of police procedure and policies to steal and sell confiscated guns and ammunition to local street gangs."I watched it because: it was next in line in the series, and after the last one that I watched I was looking for something more lighthearted
story: 3/5--far less dumb than #2 (damned by faint praise?)
visuals: 3/5--some great explosions and other effects, and of course the setting is generally quite lovely
acting: 3/5--standout: the addition of Rene Russo to the cast is a boon. Joe Pesci has hit full-on parody sketch status here (enough already!) so it's great to have someone whose presence on screen supports rather than detracts from the big two
intangibles: 3/5
overall: 3/5
I watched it because: I wanted to see it when it first came out, but didn't have anyone to go with. It appealed both from subject matter and cinematic standpoints.
story: 4/5--a couple of weeks in the life of Winston Churchill and the history of Britain and the world
visuals: 5/5--the best modern film set that I've ever seen. This film cost around $30MM, and they did not skimp on the details. They built the f'ing House of Commons!
acting: 4.5/5--standout: Gary Oldman, obviously. How does a 61-year-old man who is that objectively handsome and fit become Winston f'ing Churchill? It's a tremendous performance. I also really enjoyed Australian Ben Mendelsohn as awkward, serious, overwhelmed King George VI.
intangibles: 5/5--how this failed to take the Oscar for Production Design is beyond me. It is extraordinary.
Academy Award winner:
• Best Actor--Gary Oldman
• Best Makeup
Academy Award nominee:
• Best Picture
• Best Cinematography
• Best Costume Design
• Best Production Design
overall: 4.625/5--one of the finest films I've ever seen
The Reading Room (2005) - "Making good on a promise he made to his dying wife, a widower opens a reading room, a place where people can learn to read. Despite his goodwill, problems in the neighborhood threaten his establishment."I watched it because: my dad recommended it
story: 3/5--nothing too unexpected or enlightening here
visuals: 2.5/5--very limited set and other visuals
acting: 3.5/5--standout: James Earl Jones (William), of course, is wonderful. The rest of the cast were pretty much unknown to me. The best of that bunch are Douglas Spain (Javier) and Kathryne Dora Brown (Jillian).
intangibles: 3.5/5--it is a nice story with a kind message, highly unoffensive and inspiring. There is nothing not to like here.
overall: 3.125/5
I watched it because: my dad recommended it, and I wanted something short and easy to watch
story: 4/5--I thought that I'd seen pretty much every Western there is (or maybe the same one, on infinite repeat?), but this is different, and I liked the depth and moral implications.
visuals: 3/5--it's a Western, for crissakes
acting: 4/5--standout: Gregory Peck is terribly good looking, but this film really showcases his acting ability
intangibles: 3/5
overall: 3.5/5
Children of Men (2006) - "In 2027, in a chaotic world in which women have become somehow infertile, a former activist agrees to help transport a miraculously pregnant woman to a sanctuary at sea."I watched it because: I didn't know anything about it; was just looking for something to watch while working out.
story: 3/5--pretty complicated, it takes a while to figure out what's going on. Once that bit becomes clear, though, the story is great.
visuals: 3/5--dark, dark, dark
acting: 4.5/5--standouts: this was my introduction to Clive Owen (I think?) and he was really good--believable--as Theo Faron. Michael Caine's Jasper was a revelation (it took 3 scenes for me to realize that was him!), and Pam Ferris was wonderful as Miriam.
intangibles: 3/5--really, really dark. If you're not into dystopian art, this is may be a turn-off. If you're willing to put up with a heavy dose of morose, though: go for it.
Academy Award nominee:
• Best Writing--Adapted Screenplay
• Best Cinematography
• Best Film Editing
overall: 3.375/5
I watched it because: I hadn't seen it before and wanted something VERY light after the last thing that I saw.
story: 2.5/5--no more dumb than I had expected, I guess? Realize that I am hardly the target audience.
visuals: 3/5--pretty people being pretty
acting: 2/5--if you go into this expecting there to be acting, you will come out pretty disappointed...
intangibles: 3/5--considering the issues surrounding some of the cast since this was made, it's nowhere near the disaster that I had anticipated
overall: 2.625/5
Ronin (1998) - "A freelancing former U.S. Intelligence Agent tries to track down a mysterious package that is wanted by the Irish and the Russians."I watched it because: I'd seen it before, but it's been a while. I wanted to see a good film after that last thing. (I initially watched it because of my enduring love for Jean Reno.)
story: 4.5/5--complex, intricately timed, and gritty
visuals: 4/5--visceral. There's a couple of scenes toward the front end that are unforgettable, and keep running through my mind for days after I see it.
acting: 5/5--standouts: In a film with no flat notes, Robert De Niro is genius in the role of Sam, Jean Reno's Vincent is the perfect foil to him, and Sean Bean's Spence defines impotent fury.
intangibles: 3.5/5--there are some technical limitations here based on when the movie was made, and the DVD that I have shows some flaws that could be improved upon with a better transfer. Still, this is phenomenal.
overall: 4.25/5
I watched it because: it rolled up in my Amazon Prime recommendations list, and it's been a while since the last time that I saw it.
story: 4/5--based on actual events
visuals: 4/5
acting: 4.5/5--standouts: Nicolas Cage is a conundrum. Some of his work, like this (as Sgt. Jack Halcombe), is outstanding, while some of it is just Adam-Sandler-level dreadful. He absolutely makes this movie, though. Dean Norris is also really good as Sgt. Lyle Haugsven.
intangibles: 3.5/5--creepy, chilling (pun intended), and ultimately redemptive, this film can stick with you
overall: 4/5
Dinner at the Ritz (1937) - "The daughter of a murdered financier is working as a jewelry salesperson while she tracks those among her father's colleagues who plotted against him."I watched it because: it popped up in my Amazon Prime recommendations when I was looking for something light, and I typically adore David Niven.
story: 2/5--ugh
visuals: 3/5
acting: 2/5--standout: Niven is the only one in this movie that is worth a look. His leading lady (the dreadful "Annabella") was not a good match for him, and painful to watch besides.
intangibles: 2/5--far-fetched, boring, and ultimately unsatisfying
overall: 2.25/5
[the title quotation is by Jean Cocteau]
No comments:
Post a Comment